CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[ankitj]

People not voting for Warne? Omens of the impending world disaster in 2012.

No, chill out. No one other than Warne in last edition got 100% of the votes. If you are cool with Bradman, Sobers, Imran etc missing out, no need to get touchy about any individual.

On that note, I did include 1-2 Australians for diversity sake.

 

[weldone]

You didn't have Warne? Shambles.

Thought 2 spinners are enough for top 25 tbh...would've had him in top 30-40 or so surely...

 

[smash84]

Maybe it's best to have everyone submit their lists for public viewing.

Anyone outside Australia make your list?

On that note, I did include 1-2 Australians for diversity sake.

 

[ankitj]

@ Why don't you post the next set of cricketers rather than posting smileys all over the board.

 

[Ikki]

Anyone outside Australia make your list?

LOL, well I only have 3 more Australians than Weldone: Warne, Ponting and Waugh.

People not voting for Warne? Omens of the impending world disaster in 2012.

No, chill out. No one other than Warne in last edition got 100% of the votes. If you are cool with Bradman, Sobers, Imran etc missing out, no need to get touchy about any individual.

On that note, I did include 1-2 Australians for diversity sake.

There are a handful of cricketers IMO who if purposely not voted in is a bit of a disgrace. I am not cool with any of the aforementioned missing out FTR. The 3 names you just mentioned are in my top 4.

Is this is a real exercise to see what people view as 25 great cricketers or just a fanboys list of 25 names? I can understand how people can be partial to some players but some names IMO have to be in the list; it just depends where you want to put them. Had I known I would have voted very differently.

Thought 2 spinners are enough for top 25 tbh...would've had him in top 30-40 or so surely...

You're picking a top 25, not an all-time XI. There are not 25 players in cricket history greater than Warne. As I said, a shambles. I just wish I had of known to have countered this voting tactic.

 

[weldone]

On that note, I did include 1-2 Australians for diversity sake.

Lemme guess - Tom Moody and Andrew Symonds?

 

[ankitj]

Symonds was close, but I love Bhajji way too much. So I think it was Moody alone.

 

[weldone]

LOL, well I only have 3 more Australians than Weldone: Warne, Ponting and Waugh.

Are you serious when you say that you didn't include Lillee and Miller?

 

[Ikki]

Are you serious when you say that you didn't include Lillee and Miller?

I didn't say that. I don't have O'Reilly or Border in my 25.

 

[ankitj]

There are a handful of cricketers IMO who if purposely not voted in is a bit of a disgrace. I am not cool with any of the aforementioned missing out FTR. The 3 names you just mentioned are in my top 4.

What if someone only wants to vote for players who have batting average > 50 OR bowling average < 25?

 

[weldone]

You're picking a top 25, not an all-time XI. There are not 25 players in cricket history greater than Warne. As I said, a shambles. I just wish I had of known to have countered this voting tactic.

It all depends on how you define your top 25 cricketers. When I picked my top 25 cricketers I was 100% honest and unbiased (could be unbiased, thanks to a different reason) in my approach. If I knew of the intellectual dishonesty among some of the voters here (not you FTR), I would have made a joke of my list to drag Ganguly ahead of Jardine and Kohli ahead of Border.

What is your problem if I honestly don't think Warne as one of the top 25 test cricketers ever? I really don't. I keep him among my best-ever 5 (maybe even 3) spinners of all time. But that's my list. If you have a problem with that, that is similar to how I feel about you thinking Ponting being 'comparable' to Tendulkar. Even though I don't agree with what you think about Ponting versus Tendulkar, I don't take it as 'intellectual dishonesty' and don't think of a devise to counter that 'voting tactic'.

It's all well and good as long as we are being honest to ourselves while listing whom we think as 25 best cricketers. That is what I did. Had it been a 'fan' thing, I would've probably had Utpal Chatterjee at no. 2, right after Tendulkar (I didn't have Tendulkar at no. 1 FTR )

 

[sledger]

@ Why don't you post the next set of cricketers rather than posting smileys all over the board.

Hahahaha, ind33d.

 

[zaremba]

You're picking a top 25, not an all-time XI.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to limit the number of spinners you pick in an All Time Top 25. Because after all you are entitled to bear in mind the need to include great batsmen, keepers, fast bowlers and all-rounders too in that very select list.

There are not 25 players in cricket history greater than Warne.

We are on thin ice when we claim ownership of Incontrovertible Truths. Particularly when they relate to the perceived greatness of players who happened to big during our formative years. There's a very good case for Warne being in the top 25, and a pretty good case for him being quite high up in that list. But that's about it. People are entitled to disagree with you and to have different opinions FFS.

 

[Burgey]

Omitting Australian players on spurious grounds just weakens the XI chosen at the end of the process.

For all the carry on here, I should say I picked the players I thought best regardless of nationality. If there are startling omissions on my part it's because I either thougt other blokes were better or I simply forgot some players.

If people have deliberately picked lesser players then that's the process. People make mistakes or take the piss all the time - 38% of Australians prefer Tony Abbott as PM ffs.

So you can pick a side with seven of the finest Indian players of all time in it if the voting goes that way, which is fine. But the team will never win away from home.

 

[Ikki]

What if someone only wants to vote for players who have batting average > 50 OR bowling average < 25?

That's kind of the point. Imagine someone arguing Sehwag or Hayden or even Barrington being greater cricketers than Warne?

It all depends on how you define your top 25 cricketers. When I picked my top 25 cricketers I was 100% honest and unbiased (could be unbiased, thanks to a different reason) in my approach. If I knew of the intellectual dishonesty among some of the voters here (not you FTR), I would have made a joke of my list to drag Ganguly ahead of Jardine and Kohli ahead of Border.

What is your problem if I honestly don't think Warne as one of the top 25 test cricketers ever? I really don't. I keep him among my best-ever 5 (maybe even 3) spinners of all time. But that's my list. If you have a problem with that, that is similar to how I feel about you thinking Ponting being 'comparable' to Tendulkar. Even though I don't agree with what you think about Ponting versus Tendulkar, I don't take it as 'intellectual dishonesty' and don't think of a devise to counter that 'voting tactic'.

At the end of the day, I could leave Tendulkar out of my top 25 far easier than I could Warne. Yet I know the reactions if I had. People can make the list as arbitrary and subjective as they want to justify their choices. I am not arguing that they can't do that. But let's stop pretending there isn't a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty when people exclude players based on that kind of crap. You go into any serious discussion about cricket with notable judges and they'd laugh you out of the room if you'd said he was not in the top 25 cricketers of all-time.

I am not arguing this with you FTR. You can pick who you want. I just wish I had known to have countered this kind of voting.

 

[Ikki]

I think it's perfectly legitimate to limit the number of spinners you pick in an All Time Top 25. Because after all you are entitled to bear in mind the need to include great batsmen, keepers, fast bowlers and all-rounders too in that very select list.

We are on thin ice when we claim ownership of Incontrovertible Truths. Particularly when they relate to the perceived greatness of players who happened to big during our formative years. There's a very good case for Warne being in the top 25, and a pretty good case for him being quite high up in that list. But that's about it. People are entitled to disagree with you and to have different opinions FFS.

I knew I'd get this reply, but that is not the point of my post nor was it to argue against people's entitlements. For all intents and purposes someone could exclude Bradman and have their reasons why. I would have rather had the voting public so I can know whose opinion not to place a peanut on.

 

[weldone]

That's kind of the point. Imagine someone arguing Sehwag or Hayden or even Barrington being greater cricketers than Warne?



At the end of the day, I could leave Tendulkar out of my top 25 far easier than I could Warne. Yet I know the reactions if I had. People can make the list as arbitrary and subjective as they want to justify their choices. I am not arguing that they can't do that. But let's stop pretending there isn't a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty when people exclude players based on that kind of crap. You go into any serious discussion about cricket with notable judges and they'd laugh you out of the room if you'd said he was not in the top 25 cricketers of all-time.

I am not arguing this with you FTR. You can pick who you want. I just wish I had known to have countered this kind of voting.

Define 'notable judges', and your post will start making more than 0% sense.

 

[Ikki]

Define 'notable judges', and your post will start making more than 0% sense.

Do you know of any list where a panel of former greats and/or experts have voted for an XI where he was not at least in the 2nd XI or the top 25 players ever? He is not only regularly in the top 5 he is almost always in the first XI too.

Listen, I understand what you're saying - it really didn't need pointing out that people may genuinely think differently or there are no absolute positions on players. But let's not also go all the way in the other direction. Imagine a list of players where only one nationality is represented? Yeah, your arguments can still defend that list...but let's call it what it is; taking the piss. As I said, you can pick who you like. No arguments. I just wish I had known beforehand to have countered this kind of voting.

 

[weldone]

Do you know of any list where a panel of former greats and/or experts have voted for an XI where he was not at least in the 2nd XI or the top 25 players ever? He is not only regularly in the top 5 he is almost always in the first XI too.

Listen, I understand what you're saying - it really didn't need pointing out that people may genuinely think differently or there are no absolute positions on players. But let's not also go the other way. Imagine a list of players where only one nationality is represented? Yeah, your arguments can still defend that list...but let's call it what it is; taking the piss.

There is a reason we are conducting this voting, and not copy-pasting from an 'experts' list. Is there? If not, why are we?

By the way if we are basing our opinions on experts ('notable judges', as you say) then what do you think when Sobers says that Gupte was a better spinner than Warne? Or, when Hutton says that Gavaskar would be as famous as Bradman had he been an English or an Australian? Or, when Sobers says that Gavaskar is the best batsman he's seen? Or when Bradman picks Arthur Morris in his all-time XI? Or, when Warne keeps Waugh at no. 14 (?) among his Aussie teammates? Or when Dravid says that only God could be better than Ganguly on the off-side...

It seems very hard to make you understand the word 'honesty'. You would never know whether I am being honest while making my list. Only I would know. And this kind of a voting will work only if everyone is honest - not if you deliberately vote the other way to 'counter' other voters. If you think like that today, tommorrow I might vote for Ganguly at no. 1 to counter Jardine, and day after Jono will bring in Kohli ahead of Bradman...that's the way World War III starts

 

[Jono]

Ikki wants wikileaks for the CW top 50